Crowdsourcing to Community Sourcing: Open Authority in Digital Engagement Projects [NOTES]

Notes for a presentation at the American Alliance of Museums Annual Meeting, May 2014 in Seattle, Washington, discussing The Children's Museum of Indianapolis Digital Engagement Project, 100 Toys that Define Our Childhood, as an example of Open Authority and Community Sourcing in museums. Other panelists included Dan Davis from the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, Jeffrey Inscho of the Carnegie Museum of Art, and Petra Pankow of the Monclair Art Museum.

Transcript of "Crowdsourcing to Community Sourcing: Open Authority in Digital Engagement Projects [NOTES]"

1.
NOTES:
Crowdsourcing
to
Community
Sourcing:
A
100
Toys
Case
Study
American
Alliance
of
Museums,
Seattle,
May
20,
2014
• I’m
Lori
Phillips,
the
Digital
Marketing
Content
Coordinator
at
The
Children’s
Museum
of
Indianapolis.
• I’m
going
to
share
a
framework
for
us
to
better
discuss
the
nuance
around
crowdsourcing
and
participatory
projects.
• I’ll
then
share
a
community-­‐sourced
project
that
we
carried
out
at
The
Children’s
Museum,
called
“100
Toys
That
Define
Our
Childhood.”
• For
my
masters
research
I
wanted
to
tackle
the
question
of
How
museums
could
best
integrate
visitor
contributions
while
still
maintaining
the
museum’s
authority
and
reputations
as
experts.
• While
we’re
a
bit
more
comfortable
with
user-­‐generated
content
today,
even
just
three
years
ago
the
idea
was
VERY
scary.
• And
because
I
believe
that
we’re
often
afraid
of
things
we
don’t
understand
or
haven’t
defined,
I
decided
to
just
put
a
name
to
it—and
that’s
“Open
Authority.”
• The
“open”
in
Open
Authority
is
inspired
by
the
open
source
software
movement,
which
believes
that
the
more
people
you
have
looking
at
a
problem,
the
more
quickly
you’ll
find
a
solution.
• This
means
that
museums
should
“open”
the
doors
to
community
participation.
• I
define
open
authority
as
the
coming
together
of
museum
expertise
and
community
contributions.
• Openness
is
needed
to
remain
active
players
in
this
collaborative
environment.
• Authority
is
needed
to
bring
expertise
&
context
to
all
that
user-­‐generated
content
• Basically,
that
means
that
participatory
projects
aren’t
all
or
nothing.
It’s
not
that
the
museum
is
necessarily
always
right,
or
that
the
crowd
is
always
right,
• It’s
that
we
can
make
it
even
better,
together.
• The
truly
“open”
museum
sees
the
visitor
as
a
collaborator
and
an
active
contributor
in
the
creation
and
interpretation
of
content,
and
the
curator
as
an
engaged,
expert
facilitator.
American Alliance of Museums
Annual Meeting, 2014
A"100"Toys"Case"Study"
Crowdsourcing"to"
Community"Sourcing"
Lori Byrd Phillips | @LoriLeeByrd
Defining
Open Authority
Museum
+
contributions!
expertise!
Community!

2.
• Many
museums
now
use
crowdsourcing
as
a
way
to
actively
partner
with
visitors.
But
there’s
much
more
to
open
authority
than
just
crowdsourcing.
• I
think
that
there’s
really
a
spectrum
of
Open
Authority,
with
many
possible
engagement
models,
beginning
with
more
conservative
approaches
(often
what
museums
are
doing
now)
and
leading
to
a
more
progressive
approach.
• I’ve
borrowed
this
spectrum
for
Open
Authority
from
Mia
Ridge,
who
pointed
out
this
existing
model
for
public
participation
in
projects.
o Mia
has
edited
a
volume
coming
out
soon
called
“Crowdsourcing
our
Cultural
Heritage.”
So
keep
an
eye
out
for
that.
• So
more
conservative
projects
are...
• Contributory,
where
the
public
contributes
data
to
a
project
designed
by
the
organization.
• The
spectrum
then
moves
on
to...
• Collaborative,
where
the
public
helps
refine
project
design,
with
the
project
still
led
by
org.
• At
the
far
end
of
the
spectrum
is...
• Co-­‐Creative,
where
the
public
can
take
part
in
all
processes,
and
all
parties
design
the
project
together.
• The
spectrum
is
moving
from
being
less
transactional
to
more
transactional
and
Interactive
with
less
dialogue
to
increasingly
more
dialogue.
• Contributory
projects
are
often
what
we
consider
crowdsourcing.
• To
quote
Mia,
Crowdsourcing
involves
asks
directed
toward
a
shared
goal
that
cannot
be
done
automatically,
and
they
have
inherent
rewards
for
participation.
o Generally
speaking,
crowdsourcing
can
be:
Voting,
Tagging,
Identifying
objects,
Transcribing
documents.
• Community
Sourcing
is
a
more
nuanced
approach
to
crowdsourcing,
and
involves
bigger
asks
made
of
a
more
committed,
loyal
community
o Community
sourcing
can
include
Memory
Sharing,
Community
Blogging,
Idea
Generation
and
Dialogue,
or
Sharing
Media
• And
at
the
end
of
the
spectrum
is
Co-­‐Creation,
which
is
true
participatory
interpretation.
o I
believe
that
the
Reggio
Emilia
educational
approach
is
the
best
model
of
co-­‐creation
in
museums,
but
I
won’t
have
time
to
talk
about
that
today.
Please
come
find
me
later
if
you
want
to
talk
Reggio
Emilia,
I’d
be
happy
to
• So,
now
to
dive
back
into
some
real-­‐life
examples.
I’m
going
to
share
about
a
community-­‐sourcing
project
at
The
Children’s
Museum
of
Indianapolis.
• The
Children’s
Museum
is
the
largest
children’s
museum
in
the
world
and
has
a
collection
of
over
120,000
objects.
o Because
we
only
ever
have
about
10%
of
our
collection
on
display
at
any
one
time,
we’re
always
looking
for
other
ways
to
share
our
objects.
• We
were
inspired
by
the
British
Museum’s
project
“A
History
of
the
World
in
100
Objects,”
and
we
wanted
to
take
that
idea
and
make
it
a
little
more
participatory.
Open
Authority !"
Contributory Collaborative Co-Creative
Tagging
Voting
Identifying
Transcribing
Community Sourcing Participatory
Interpretation
Crowdsourcing
Memory Sharing
Community Blogging
Idea Generation / Dialogue
Sharing Media
Reggio Emilia
A Spectrum of Open Authority

3.
• So
in
the
summer
of
2012,
100
Toys
was
born.
• The
full
title
is
“100
Toys
(and
their
stories)
That
Define
Our
Childhood.”
• 100
Toys
was
a
digital
engagement
project
that
asked
the
museum’s
online
community
to
share
stories
and
vote
for
their
favorite
toys,
ultimately
deciding
the
“Top
20
Toys
That
Define
Childhood.”
• The
original
100
toys
were
chosen
by
our
American
Collection
curator,
to
best
represent
the
last
100
years.
• All
of
the
toys
were
in
our
collection
and
were
photographed
for
the
project.
• The
100
Toys
were
unveiled
in
mid-­‐July
of
2012.
• Then
for
5
weeks
we
highlighted
a
batch
of
20
toys
on
social
media,
encouraging
online
visitors
to
vote
&
to
“make
the
case”
for
their
favorite
by
sharing
their
story
or
memory.
• Votes
were
dynamically
compiled
throughout,
and
stories
were
selected
to
be
featured
on
each
toy’s
page.
• (I
couldn’t
resist
sharing
my
own
story
about
my
lost
cabbage
patch
kid
that
I
found
in
another
state
seven
years
later,
and
that’s
what’s
featured
here.)
• The
Top
20
toys
were
then
unveiled
with
much
fanfare
by
local
media,
including
a
special
spread
in
The
Indianapolis
Star.
• The
community-­‐curated
display
shown
here
was
located
prominently
at
our
entry
gates.
• The
public
was
then
invited
for
2
weeks
to
rank
the
Top
20
to
choose
the
Top
3.
• In
case
you
were
wondering,
The
Top
3
toys
were
G.I.
Joe,
Transformers,
and
LEGOs,
followed
closely
by
Barbie,
the
Viewmaster,
the
bicycle,
Cabbage
Patch
Kids,
and
Hot
Wheels.
• They
were
labeled
with
their
rankings
and
the
display
remained
up
for
several
months,
where
visitors
could
continue
to
submit
stories
via
QR
code.
• 100
Toys
started
out
as
an
experimental
story-­‐collecting
project,
but
it
massively
surpassed
expectations
when
it
gained
prominent
attention
in
national
press
and
on
social
media.
• In
addition
to
support
from
the
Indy
Star
and
other
local
media,
we
received
national
coverage
through
Yahoo,
The
Washington
Post,
CNN,
Fox
News,
and
NPR’s
All
Things
Considered.
The
Yahoo
story
alone
received
1,700
comments.
• In
the
end,
100
Toys
spurred
diverse
and
heartfelt
dialogue
from
local,
regional,
and
international
users
across
many
online
platforms.
• From
July
to
September,
we
had
over
94,000
page
views
on
100
Toys
web
pages
• There
were
over
600
stories
submitted
(exact:
641
stories)
• And
over
24,000
votes
(exact:
24,417)
• We
received
submissions
from
all
ages,
especially
baby
boomers,
and
significant
contributions
from
men,
which
we
were
happy
to
see.
• The
reach
was
not
only
local
and
regional,
but
national
and
international,
with
participation
from
over
a
dozen
states
and
countries
including
Germany,
Canada,
Israel,
and
Australia.
Memories last a lot longer than toys.
Check out your Top 20 Toys…!
“…Can I high five you?”
!
Results
! 94,000 pageviews
! 24,417 votes
! 641 stories
! 18 states
! 4 countries

4.
• At
the
heart
of
100
Toys’
success
was
nostalgia,
passion,
and
really
an
incredible
urge
to
share
that
special
story
about
a
memorable
toy.
• Here
are
our
conclusions
about
what
worked:
• THE
TOPIC
led
to
nostalgic
connections
to
the
objects.
Everyone
loves
toys.
• VOTING
motivated
users
to
participate
and
drove
media
coverage.
• FAMILIES
shared
together,
contributing
to
intergenerational
learning,
which
is
the
Children’s
Museum’s
mission—to
promote
family
learning.
• COLLECTIONS
were
distributed
in
new
ways
through
beautiful
photography,
so
we
were
increasing
access.
• COMMUNITY
was
empowered
to
curate
content
that
resulted
in
on-­‐site
display.
• Because
of
the
success
of
100
Toys,
we
began
to
pursue
future
Digital
Engagement
Projects.
• But
this
required
a
bit
of
internal
education
on
what
a
digital
engagement
project
is.
• So
we
worked
to
create
a
definition
and
list
of
elements
to
help
others
understand
what
makes
these
projects
unique.
• We
define
a
Digital
Engagement
Project
as
an
interactive
project
that
engages
visitors
to
participate
both
online
and
on-­‐site.
• They
always
include
a
Social,
Web,
and
On-­‐Site
component
• and
also
have
the
goal
of
encouraging
attendance
to
the
museum
to
extend
the
experience
even
further.
• The
digital
project
is
always
on
the
museum’s
website,
with
social
media
strongly
supporting
and
promoting
it.
• Sometimes
Digital
Engagement
Projects
are
confused
with
social
media
campaigns.
• We
like
to
say
that
while
social
campaigns
do
exist
around
each
exhibit,
a
Digital
Engagement
Project
is
so
much
more.
• A
Digital
Engagement
Project
always
includes
an
on-­‐site
component,
which
could
be
something
like
the
examples
listed
here,
such
as
a
public
event
or
a
visitor-­‐
curated
display.
• Digital
engagement
projects
also
include
at
least
one
online
element,
like
those
listed
here.
The
online
tools
and
social
platforms
change
depending
on
the
goals
of
the
Digital
Engagement
Project.
• We’re
now
working
on
our
third
Digital
Engagement
Project,
and
have
used
this
definition
to
guide
us.
o Our
Director
of
Collections,
Chris
Carron,
just
presented
on
our
2nd
Digital
Engagement
Project,
the
Superpower
Showdown,
here
yesterday.
o And
our
third
will
take
place
next
year,
focusing
on
inspiring
fashion
and
personal
style.
• It’s
my
hope
that
our
definition
can
be
built
upon
by
others
looking
to
formalize
recurring,
participatory
digital
projects
in
your
own
museums.
o Please
don’t
hesitate
to
come
chat
with
me
later.
I
have
a
handout
and
also
some
pretty
great
100
Toys
buttons
to
share.
Thank
you
so
much.
What worked?
! THE TOPIC
! VOTING
! SHARING
! COLLECTIONS
! COMMUNITY!
A Digital Engagement Project is…
! PARTICIPATORY
! Crowdsourced
! Community-sourced
! DIGITAL
! An online game
! Online voting or sharing
! Online contest
! SOCIAL
! Social media campaign
! Social media contest
! ON-SITE
! A display of objects
! A public event
! Voting or sharing on-site
! A pop-up exhibit